• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Barr sets out foreign policy vision

itshappening

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
12,355
From the Barr 2008 Presidential Campaign:

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have been trading charges over whether talking to Iran would be appeasement, notes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. But “the issue is not talking, but talking from a position of strength and not expecting too much in return,” he says. Even Sen. McCain, in his recent speech on nuclear disarmament, called for negotiations with Russia, despite that government’s turn to authoritarianism. “By his own reasoning, shouldn’t that be considered appeasement,” asked Barr.

The fundamental challenge facing American foreign policy is not whether the U.S. talks to repressive regimes. The question, insists Barr, “is whether America will adopt a more restrained foreign policy, focused on protecting the core interests of the United States and the American people.”

“What reason is there to defend Europe, which has a larger population and economy than America,” he asked. “There is no need for an American military garrison in Japan, which enjoys the world’s second biggest economy, six decades after the end of World War II.” And certainly it is “not the American purpose to occupy failed states, take sides in conflicts among rival religious factions, and attempt to impose liberal democracy on other societies,” he added.

The American people deserve a far-reaching debate over foreign policy, said Barr. “For too long the U.S. has been coddling what amount to international welfare queens while playing global nanny to the Third World. We must develop a defense policy that defends America instead of everyone else.”

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and actively advocating American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.
 
What's his position on Iran?

Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans).

"Strengthening economic and political pressure"

Lawyer-speak for "sanctions". How that would help diplomatic efforts is anyone's guess.
 
"Strengthening economic and political pressure"

Lawyer-speak for "sanctions". How that would help diplomatic efforts is anyone's guess.

Much like you are reading between the lines I could easily read between the lines and call this "diplomacy" of the kind Ron Paul suggests.
 
So basically CO-OPT about half of what Ron Paul said (bringing troops home from Europe and Japan, etc)...

But then "integrate" it (i.e. obfuscate and subvert it) with an EXPANSION of military "POWER PROJECTION" in other places around the world.

Oh... and say NOTHING AT ALL about the current fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Conclusion: the LP has been NEO-CONNED.

But Eric Dondero (and neo-con ilk like him) will be happy.
 
Worked pretty well to get Libya to give up their ambitions for a nuclear weapon program.

This is interventionism. Bob Barr wants to be an interventionist in this regard, then that's his perogative. But it's not Ron Paul's foreign policy - which is based on the principle that the U.S. government has no right to make such demands of other countries. It's not even close .
 
stevedasbach, Has Barr ever called for anything like dismantling all foreign U.S. military bases before?

By RP’s calculations the military/empire complex is a $1 trillion per year racket and forms the structural foundation that the entire Military Keynesian system depends on.

Barr's press release which as far as I can tell does not renew his recent calls for besiegement, starvation, or any other acts of war pressure on other countries seems like it might be a significant move toward true libertarianism for Barr.

All he has to do now is announce the Presidential Prison/Pardon/and Restitution Repentance Tour and he'll be driving a big blimp to the white house.
 
This is interventionism. Bob Barr wants to be an interventionist in this regard, then that's his perogative. But it's not Ron Paul's foreign policy - which is based on the principle that the U.S. government has no right to make such demands of other countries. It's not even close .

I don't think I agree that this is interventionism in the sense that war and invasion is interventionism. If I refuse to do business with you because I don't like you, that isn't interventionism, that's choice.
 
I don't think I agree that this is interventionism in the sense that war and invasion is interventionism. If I refuse to do business with you because I don't like you, that isn't interventionism, that's choice.

If you personally don't want to do business with Syria (or Iran, Cuba etc.), that's your choice. If you want to use the coercive force of government to regulate the individual actions of every American, that's the denial of choice. The distinction is quite apparent.

Sanctions are not only interventionism, they are a form of war. They are also counterproductive and usually only serve as the perfect scapegoat for tyrannical governments.
 
If you personally don't want to do business with Syria (or Iran, Cuba etc.), that's your choice. If you want to use the coercive force of government to regulate the individual actions of every American, that's the denial of choice. The distinction is quite apparent.

Sanctions are not only interventionism, they are a form of war. They are also counterproductive and usually only serve as the perfect scapegoat for tyrannical governments.

It might be a denial of choice against me, but it's still not intervention against that foreign entity in the way that war, invasion, and regime change is intervention.

Also, regulating trade with foreign nations is one of the very few things that the federal government is authorized to do under the Constitution.

And sanctions are not an act of war. I think you may have confused sanctions with blockades, which are indeed a war act. But merely passing legislation barring trade with a foreign entity is not war, nor is it unconstitutional. Might be unwise, but that's a different issue.
 
Sanctions are not only interventionism, they are a form of war. They are also counterproductive and usually only serve as the perfect scapegoat for tyrannical governments.

That's right and that's the classical libertarian position, and we should all pray that Bob Barr will be reading Murray Rothbard and learning these things soon.
 
It might be a denial of choice against me, but it's still not intervention against that foreign entity in the way that war, invasion, and regime change is intervention.

Also, regulating trade with foreign nations is one of the very few things that the federal government is authorized to do under the Constitution.

And sanctions are not an act of war. I think you may have confused sanctions with blockades, which are indeed a war act. But merely passing legislation barring trade with a foreign entity is not war, nor is it unconstitutional. Might be unwise, but that's a different issue.

OK but FWIW Dr. Paul disagrees with you (and Mr. Barr)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/30/politics/uwire/main3428534.shtml

Paul called for an end to all sanctions, including those imposed on Iran and Cuba, saying that "sanctions really are an act of war."

Paul said the sanctions on Iran are the same type of sanctions that led up to the war with Iraq.

I just wanted to clear up the misconception that Barr and Paul's foreign policies are the same. It may not be "intervention against that foreign entity in the way that war, invasion, and regime change is intervention.", but its still intervention.

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." This is what Dr. Paul believes...he doesn't just pay lip service to this notion, he actively defends it.
 
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

Just as a what if, would that statement also apply to nations that allow slave labor? Do the products of slave labor deserve equal placement on our store shelves with the products of free societies? Is there no role at all for our national political process to weigh in on such questions? It's certainly permitted in the Constitution, on the very short list of powers that the Congress has. I think if you want to do away with this power of the government, you'd need a Constitutional amendment.
 
Just as a what if, would that statement also apply to nations that allow slave labor? Do the products of slave labor deserve equal placement on our store shelves with the products of free societies? Is there no role at all for our national political process to weigh in on such questions? It's certainly permitted in the Constitution, on the very short list of powers that the Congress has. I think if you want to do away with this power of the government, you'd need a Constitutional amendment.

I don't want to "do away" with that power of government, I just don't want it to be exercised in a counterproductive and capricious manner. Freedom works! Sanctions and other forms of interventionism only strengthen bad regimes. You want a country to open up to the rest of the world, you don’t ostracize it -- you lead by example. Sanctions have been in place in Cuba and North Korea for six decades, and nothing has changed. The innocent people have suffered while the leaders import whatever they want anyway, while at the same time blaming America for the consequences of their bad governance. It’s time for a new approach.

People are entitled to support an interventionist foreign policy if they so choose, but if they do, they shouldn’t claim to believe in non-interventionism.

But I'm done arguing as I think I've made my point. When it comes to foreign policy (at least), there are some stark differences between that which is being advocated by Dr. Paul (and most libertarians) and those positions which Mr. Barr has taken.
 
Last edited:
There's absolutely no substance here and you read the comments made by WAR and you instantly understand that "a defense policy that defends America instead of everyone else" means "war on terror."
 
Back
Top